![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Trump-Offends.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This rule change for legal immigrants is simple, straightforward and honestly, one I thought was already in place. (At least I remember it from filling out a bazillion immigration forms) The rule change is designed to make legal immigrants show they won\u2019t be a burden to the American taxpayers. (Both citizens and legal aliens) Here are the details from the Washington Times<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n The Trump administration is now on the clock to finalize one of the biggest changes to legal immigration policy in a generation, after the official comment period ended Monday on a plan to require immigrants to show they aren\u2019t a public burden if they want to extend their visas or get on the path to citizenship. <\/b><\/p>\n As I mentioned above, I recall signing a document regarding the Former Mrs. Webmaster, (And current girlfriend), that specifically stated that she wouldn\u2019t become a burden to the American taxpayers. Granted, that was 15 years ago, and it\u2019s possible that either the Globalist Bush administration or the Obama Regime changed that rule.<\/p>\n Immigrant rights groups and other Trump opponents mounted a feverish last-minute push to try to derail the proposal. They submitted tens of thousands of comments calling the plan misguided and racist and warned that it would keep needy immigrants from visiting doctors and leave children hungry because their parents fear signing them up for free school lunches, lest they lose their chance at citizenship. <\/b><\/p>\n Somehow, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s going to affect the school lunch program. I also don\u2019t think that all that many lawful resident aliens actually use that program. No, this is aiming at those who come here and go right onto the welfare roles.<\/p>\n The president\u2019s backers said they expect Mr. Trump and his team to finalize the proposal. If anything, they said, it doesn\u2019t go far enough to crack down on what appears to be rampant welfare use by noncitizens and their children.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cI think they\u2019re going to implement them as is or with some tweaks. This is the kind of thing he was elected for,\u201d said Steven A. Camarota<\/a>, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies. \u201cWhile there might be advocacy groups that object to that idea, the fact is most Americans think immigrants should be self-sufficient, so I think they\u2019re on pretty strong ground.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n When the former Mrs. Webmaster came over, she wasn\u2019t allowed to get a job right away. We had to get all sorts of things taken care of first. While we were doing that, she went to a school that taught English as a second language. We paid for her books and the fees for the classes.<\/p>\n I will acknowledge that it was a subsidized class, however, as soon as she was legally able to, the former Mrs. Webmaster got a job and has been working, and paying taxes ever since. The same is true of many of the students attending that school.<\/p>\n Since they are working to improve their English, or studying to become American citizens, it\u2019s one taxpayer expenditure that can be justified. This differs for those who get off the plane and then head right to the nearest welfare office and promptly start taking money that they don\u2019t deserve.<\/p>\n The center released a study this month calculating that a staggering 63 percent of households led by noncitizens use at least one welfare program. The rate for households led by native-born Americans is just 35 percent. <\/b><\/p>\n But under guidelines established during the Clinton administration, the government looks at only a narrow set of cash assistance programs when determining whether an immigrant is a public charge. Even then, it was rarely enforced. <\/b><\/p>\n The Homeland Security Department\u2019s proposal would add food stamps, public housing and long-term institutionalized care to the list of potential public charge grounds. Disaster relief, assistance to immigrants serving in the armed forces or their families, and emergency medical care would not count against an immigrant. <\/b><\/p>\n Right off the bat, any immigrant who is serving in the United States Military is anything but a burden. He or she has sworn an oath to defend our Constitution and our way of life. They have earned some benefits at the risk of their own lives. Most of these men and women become American citizens as soon as they are able.<\/p>\n Rights groups said that was a cruel choice to force on immigrants. <\/b><\/p>\n Sen. Kamala D. Harris and Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragan, both California Democrats, submitted official comments last week calling the proposal \u201cextreme federal overreach.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cBy proposing a rule that so clearly attacks immigrant families and children, and which has already fueled fear and confusion in our communities, the department is taking another misguided step in advancing this administration\u2019s cruel, anti-immigrant agenda,\u201d they wrote. <\/b><\/p>\n I\u2019m not surprised that these two Kalifornistan CommuNazis are against anything that keeps deadbeat foreigners out of the United States. They see these people not as a potential benefit to the United States, they see them as potential property of the CommuNazi party. They don\u2019t want these people to become independent, hardworking taxpayers, they want them to be utterly dependent on the government. Another term for this might be slavery.<\/p>\n The Evangelical Immigration Table, a coalition of Christian advocates, predicted that some married couples could suffer. One of the spouses could be denied a visa because of their poor financial position, and families with one parent who stays home to watch children could be burdened by having a lower income, the coalition said. <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cPolicies that separate or bar the reunification of families are deeply troubling,\u201d the group said. \u201cWe believe that all government policy \u2014 including immigration policy \u2014 should promote the strength and unity of families wherever possible.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n How can I put this? You are WRONG Moonbat breath. If one parent stays at home and the other is out working, then the one who is out working is paying taxes. This used to be called a \u201cTraditional family.\u201d You know, one parent, usually the mother, stays home and takes care of the children.<\/p>\n I also have noticed how few of these Progressive Christian groups actually spend any of their own funds aiding new lawful residents. As I recall, churches were very big back in the day when we had millions of immigrants coming in from \u201cThe Olde Country.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n